Theos-Talk Archives (May 1999ar Message tt00149)

May 22 1999

Dallas offers:

In my opinion it is not important to actually pin-point who
the "next MESSENGER"
is, was, or might be.  That would be personalizing the
matter.

And if we do find such an individual would we be ready to
assist or to hinder their work?  Do we fancy that some
special benefit or recognition is due to us -- and that we
deserve any special attention at all ?

I recall that in MAHATMA LETTERS p. 337 the "chela" is told
not to ask for anything, ever.  Apparently Karma takes care
of what is his due.  I would even add that the fact that we
hope to be recognized is a sign that we may not "deserve."

The main point at issue is :  What are we doing with
Theosophy in our own lives.  And, secondly are we spreading
it around so that others can profit from it ?

Application and promulgation are the keys to individual
progress, are they not ?

If we are not doing that, then of what use would be the
knowledge that some person or another, is or might be, such
a "new Messenger ?"  Are we looking for a "person?" or are
we seeking better ways to understand and apply that which we
have already learned and have had opportunity for so many
years to try to learn?

Speculation on such issues detracts from the good measure of
time we could spend constructively.

Every great reformer or worker for the Lodge has always
pointed to the unity of the Movement as a whole;  and that
the efforts are not for one's self, but to try and find out
in what way we can benefit humanity as a whole.

If we are able to consider even for a little while, that we
are immortal MONADS engaged in a never-ceasing pilgrimage
toward supernal TRUTH, we may gain some vision of the
cooperative nature of our lives and the divine aspect of all
Life.
Every being is a MONAD -- a "man-mind in embryo."  That is
one of the most difficult of things to do, to change our
point of view from a casual carelessness of others, to one
of extreme attention and careful consideration of what their
needs are, and how we may help supply them.  That, to me is
what the application of Theosophy is.  This is in effect the
transformation of gross energy into a refined force that
spreads its nobilitiy around.  It is this inherent, innate
nobility that attracts the attention of the Wise.

Some spend a lot of time trying to figure out the SD or some
aspect of the Thoeopshical philosophy.  Fine.  Now what
about using it universally ?  Are we seeking to learn, or to
pick out some minuscule item on which we are able to
improve, in our esteem ?  Are we choking on gnats, and
allowing elephantine  errors to escape -- because we did not
learn to identify them ?

As to the SECRET DOCTRINE -- Many have added their views and
made comments and offered corrections.  Very good.  Those
ought NOT to be inserted without some special mark on them
into the body of the reprints of the originals.


student who buy and use those books ought to be given the
courtesy of being allowed to see what HPB wrote.  If there
is a valid contribution or correction then it ought to
FOOTNOTED so that each student may consider its value as
part of his own education.  Why should any one arrogate to
themselves the right to serve as a filter, or an interpreter
to the originals, when they are not capable of encompassing
the WHOLE OF THE PHILOSOPHY -- and do not know if ultimately
what they propose correcting is right or wrong.  Arrogance.

Otherwise it is an example of extreme presumptions -- that
we claim in some degree to: "KNOW MORE THAN THE TEACHER."
And that is pride and presumption.  Also a desire to display
one's knowledge.

The true monks of the Buddhist SANGHA, that have followed
the Buddha's injunctions to promulgate, always said:  "Thus
have I heard....."

But  this seems to be a repetition of what has been said
before.  The principles of discipline, learning, and
application, and especially of rediffusion of the KEY IDEAS
of value is our main task.  And we cannot do that well if we
do not allow the Teacher's original to shine forth or its
own light.  There would be no encouragement of a "new
MESSENGER" to come to us, or even to prove their existence
and presence, if we are of those who desire to show others
how right we are, and how much we have studied and have
learned.  The ensuing arguments of a "lower-manasic" nature
would be detrimental to any constructive work -- and so, in
my opinion, any "new Messenger" would carefully avoid any
person who held ideas of their being something special and
essential to the Movement.

If we wonder why we have no signs of "recognition," then we
are not paying attention to the small but subtle details of
life around us, the strange coincidences, and the ideas that
spring into our minds.  There is plenty of indication in
those (if we attune ourselves to notice them) to show the
existence actively, of the methods that the Lodge uses in
regard to its continuous and great work of protecting and
educating humanity to "learn for itself" the validity of the
moral applications of personal choices.  "To live to benefit
mankind is the first step.  to practice the six glorious
virtues is the second."  {VOICE OF THE SILENCE}.  In this
way we can see that we are all united in fact and is
substance, and that we are all under the One Law:  KARMA
which operates with equity in and on all of us.  further
that the opportunity of contributing to Universal Evolution
is ever at hand.  It is in the "small things" that progress
is achieved.

Best wishes,

Dal.

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



----- Original Message -----
From: <LeonMaurer@aol.com>
To: <theos-talk@theosophy.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 16, 1999 1:12 AM
Subject: Re: Theos-World New Messengers Have to Write Their
Own SD


>
> In a message dated 5/7/99 4:16:10 PM,
schuelergerald@optec-hq.optec.army.mil
> writes:
>
> << >>When we can write a "SECRET DOCTRINE," then we might
be entrusted to
> make interpretative changes, but not till then.>>
>
> >Although this statement is doubtless with
good-intentions,
> >it makes it very clear to me why no Messenger has been
> >recognized during this century. Nor will one ever be.>>
>
> And certainly not yourself, I presume.  But, how about
clearing it up for us
> "ignorant" students with some of your erudite knowledge or
scientifically,
> philosophically and theosophically valid references that
leads you to such a
> "clear" judgment.
>
> How do you know that others might or might not be in a
position to do so, or
> could not even have done so already?  I know of several
Secret Doctrine
> "interpretations" that "clearly" clarify what HPB said (as
taught to her by
> the Masters) and in no way contradict the fundamental
principles that
> theosophy bases ALL of it's its teachings upon.  Maybe you
ought to read some
> more of the writing of WQJ and RC, or even the modern
writings on
> reincarnation and karma by Joseph Head and Sylvia Cranston
before making such
> opinionated judgments.  Besides, what basis do we need to
judge whether
> anyone who has written an interpretation of theosophy--on
some of the levels
> that HPB has said would only be evident to the "intuitive
student--is NOT a
> direct "Messenger" of the Masters?  If you or any one of
us does not
> recognize such teaching as their direct "message," can our
"ignorance" or
> lack of intuition be the basis of such a judgment?
>
> I, for one--based on ALL of his writings, as well as a
thorough knowledge of
> the scientific correlations in the Secret Doctrine--think
that Einstein may
> have been such a "messenger."  The fact that he had no
relationship with any
> theosophical organization, or even heard of Perucker, can
in no way determine
> whether or not he had correctly interpreted the Secret
Doctrine with his
> theory of relativity, his pioneering understanding of
quantum physics, and
> his writings on peace, brotherhood, universal mind and
consciousness, and
> other theosophical truisms--ALL revealed (if some parts
are quite occult and
> obscure to most "non-intuitive" readers) in the SD.  It is
very clear to me,
> therefore, that he intuited ALL of his scientific
clarifications and moral
> "teachings" (that have radically "changed the minds of the
race," or at least
> those of their scientific gurus) directly from the
writings of HPB.  (See
> "HOW DID EINSTEIN INTUIT (GROK) E=MC^2?" at:
>
http://users.aol.com/unIwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/eins
tein.html)
>
> Since any new messenger would have to reach the "minds of
the race in the
> language of this age" with his/her new teachings or
interpretations, why
> would such a one--especially one already in the public
eye--choose to join
> ANY impotent and effete theosophical "organization" (as
they mostly appear to
> be these days), or even use the word "theosophy" in their
writings?  "A rose
> by any other name would still smell as sweet."
>
> LHM
>
>
> -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk --
theos-talk@theosophy.com
>
> Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical
ideas and
> teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message
consisting of
> "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to
theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.
>
>


-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.